If your submission does not appear in the new queue, please contact us (be sure to include a link to the Reddit post (i.e. comments section), not the content you are linking). Simply deleting your post may cause the spam filter to catch future ones.

Note: Submissions from new users, and users with low karma, are automatically removed to help prevent spam.

Also, please contact us regarding spam, political or any other inappropriate videos, as this helps us remove them more quickly!

I actually know this man. He is an incredibly nice guy and I even worked for him a few times, cutting his lawn and doing house work. When i woke up to see cop cars everywhere I thought someone had killed the old man because of all the recent break ins at his house. I'm not completely shocked that he defended himself in such an action because he was just recently talking about how he was fed up with that kind of nonsense. Anyone who thinks this man should go to jail should realize he is 92, and in Kentucky there is the castle law, which states if you feel like your life is at risk you can defend yourself with lethal intent.

I'm glad he hasn't been prosecuted (yet) for his actions. No one deserves to be stolen from, but at 92 I don't think you can do much more than protect your life with lethal intent.

I've always felt castle doctrines to be fair, despite being fairly anti-gun. If someone is in your HOME, without permission, unexpected, at night, they should have absolutely no right to expect anything else. IF there's one place we should be able to relax and feel safe, it's our own homes.

The homeowner does not always have all the facts about the intruder. What if the intrusion was inadvertent? What if the intruder is mentally handicapped, intoxicated or medicated? Or what if the door was unlocked and all the apartments look alike? What if it is an old Alzheimer's patient wandering into a neighbor's condo by accident? What if the intruder was a neighbor trying to save the homeowner's life from another intruder? What if the "intruder" was invited into the home and then misinterpreted a request to leave? What if the homeowner is a person of a certain race or religion that is trying to kill people of a different race or religion and does so by luring them into his house and then killing them as "intruders"? In all of these, or similar circumstances, the homeowner could possibly avoid responsibility for killing an innocent person.

These examples are all improbable, but not impossible. The counter argument is that death is permanent, and that life is too sacred to be allowed to be taken under possibly misleading circumstances. It's similar to the counter-argument to the death penalty. Castle doctrine results in a blanket amnesty for homicide under certain circumstances, and some people feel that they are not always appropriate.

Colorado "...any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant." 18-1-704.5 Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.

I once walked into the wrong apartment. A big guy was watching TV, and he jumped up off the couch, put his hand on my chest, and gently propelled me backward through the door, saying "What the fuck man, you don't live here." Then I sheepishly apologized from the hallway, and he said "alright then" and closed the door.

He did not tolerate my presence one bit; I walked all the way in, and he had me back out again in about 2 seconds.

Since this is Texas, he would have been within his rights to kill me. I think he and I are both glad he didn't.

Castle doctrines make some good sense, and I generally support them, but the above is my anecdotal limited counter-argument.

To be fair, the castle doctrine doesn't say you have to kill every intruder. Yours is an argument in favor of a common sense approach, not a counter to the castle doctrine, since they are not mutually exclusive.

Well, you'd get the idea from some commentators that they are. Castle Law basically allows people not to use common sense. If they say they felt threatened, they are allowed to kill an intruder. I mean, otherwise what is Castle Law for? Because as far as I understand, you're always allowed to act in self defense when somebody is attempting to kill you, no matter where you are. Castle Law essentially says that your allowed to be less discerning about who you shoot if they are in your home, which I don't agree with.

You have to clearly draw the line somewhere. Listen, I don't want a young mentally handicapped guy getting shot because he was confused any more than anyone else... The problem is, you can't really effectively legislate every possibility effectively. Instead, you need to draw a line in the sand that covers all of the most likely scenarios, even if that means a sad event happens on a rare event. It's a game of numbers, and it HAS to be done that way. There are NO good alternatives.

If someone that I don't know is in my house, I will assume they are a hostile threat immediately. I'm still young, and a relatively intimidating male at 6'1" 220lbs, and because of that I MAY try to give the intruder 1 or 2 seconds to convince me he's not a threat... That is, of course, it occurred while I was fully awake in a well lit home, and it's easy to identify the exact situation. At night, in a dark house, in a situation that I'm afraid for the safety of my family, all bets are off. Now for a feeble 92 year old man, or my wife home alone... I'm sorry, they just may not be able to afford that kind of discretion in a home invasion situation.

Terrible things happen every day, but those type of hypothetical situations are extremely unlikely, and occur very rarely. You can't possibly expect the entire population to forgo defending themselves and their family because someone may, on a very rare occasion, stumble into the wrong home...

How do you just walk into the wrong apartment? While I understand that accidents happen, I cannot fathom what would cause someone to COMPLETELY enter an apartment by accident without noticing some signs that you have made a mistake. Can you please elaborate on the events leading up to your comment.

Party at a friend's place. I went down three flights of stairs, threw out two bags of trash, came up two flights of stairs, and entered an otherwise identical door. I didn't wander into the guy's bedroom, I just confidently strode into his den, looked around, and froze. Perfectly reasonable, if careless.

PS- to those of you following along at home - routinely lock your doors! :-)

In a similar situation I once gave my friend directions to a party, he ended up walking into the neighbors house and sitting on the coach wondering if he was the first to show up. The neighbors see him, he ran, they called the cops. It sucked explaining to the cops why I sent my friend there

I can't answer for the previous poster, but I have seen a similar situation play out about 10 years ago.

I was watching TV in my apt in Denver around 3am and heard the doorknob turn quietly, without a knock. I grabbed the first weapon I saw, a large kitchen knife, and looked through the peep. There was a large unsavory looking man trying to quietly open my door. I had every reason to believe he was an intruder.

After a few attempts, he pulled out a cell, called someone, and then the door to the apt across from mine opened and he went in.

Clearly, he was intoxicated and had the wrong apartment. However, if my door had been unlocked, I guarantee you he would have eaten that knife, no questions asked. I would have been remorseful about it later, but if a man comes into my home uninvited in the middle of the night while my wife and children are sleeping, I will react with lethal force.

Before anyone questions why I didn't call the police, this all happened in the span of about 20 seconds. From past experience, I know the police didn't respond in this neighborhood very quickly. I don't intend to become a victim while waiting for popo to show up.

I woke up at my girlfriend's one day because her roommate was screaming that there was a weird guy on the couch. I wasn't a gun owner at that point and I wouldn't have shot anyway, but I might have armed myself to check out the situation. It turned out he was a previous resident. He'd gotten drunk and in the wee hours of the morning came into the wrong house. Which was weird, because the doors were locked.

Honestly, now that I have guns in the house it would take a hell of a lot more than someone opening my basement door for me to shoot. Granted, I'm 22 and able bodied, but still. I'm not going to shoot a confused college kid, mentally handicapped person, or even harmless but desperate thief just because it's MAH house.

What if the guy is trying to kill you in your sleep. What if it's a pissed off coworker looking for revenge. What if it's a serial killer. I have a feeling 9/10 times when you have has recent break ins at your house and it's 2 in the morning that the person breaking into your house probably isnt just trying to sell you cookies

Agreed - my examples are improbable, but not impossible. it's the same type of thinking that goes: Just because he is standing over a body holding a knife covered in blood doesn't mean he killed her. He may have been trying to save her life by pulling out the knife and applying CPR. That's why we have juries and courts and evidence and controlled investigations.

People feel differently about killing. For many people, they are okay with killing if there is circumstantial evidence that the person being killed is a bad guy. (E.g., he's in my house and I didn't invite him so he is a threat and should die) Some people feel that killing is immoral across the board. Some people feel that killing another human being is only permissible after a jury of their peers examines evidence and unanimously determines guilt.

I was just giving the counter argument - reasonable people have good reasons for supporting both sides.

I have a feeling 9/10 times when you have has recent break ins at your house and it's 2 in the morning that the person breaking into your house probably isnt just trying to sell you cookies

My only two experiences with "break-ins" were when my parents didn't tell me my sister was coming home from camp, and when a former resident got drunk and thought he still lived at the house I was at. The former I was ready to hit her with the wooden butt of my bb gun, the latter he was asleep on my couch in the morning and I got him out of the door before he knew what was going on.

My cousin lived in a bad area of Philly, and was on the phone with the police because her roommate didn't tell anyone she was coming home from vacation, forgot her key, and knocked stuff over climbing in her bedroom window. The police held the roommate at gunpoint when they got there, and my cousin had to tell them she'd fucked up.

I've scared my roommate the same way (forgot my key, didn't realize anyone was home, climbed in a window and knocked over a lamp).

A former roommate of mine had a guy up against the wall because the kid got drunk and ran into the apartment thinking it was his friends where a party was happening (wrong building, but the whole apartment complex has identical buildings, lobbies, and doors).

My parents had a break-in at their business (they stock ketamine), and got an alarm system. In the 8 years since, it's gone off once every 2 or 3 months on average, and never for a burgler.

To sum up, I have a feeling based on experience that more than 9/10 "break-ins" are misunderstandings or accidents.

This guy got it. There have actually been cases in the US of an intruder successfully suing a school in civil court because he hurt himself while trespassing for the purpose of burglary.

Ricky Bodine was a 19-year-old high-school graduate who, with three other friends (one of whom had a criminal record), decided the night of March 1, 1982, to steal a floodlight from the roof of the Enterprise High School gymnasium. Ricky climbed the roof, removed the floodlight, lowered it to the ground to his friends, and, as he was walking across the roof (perhaps to steal a second floodlight), he fell through the skylight. Bodine suffered terrible injuries to be sure, though one questions the relevance: if the school is legally responsible for burglars’ safety, it doesn’t matter whether Bodine stubbed a toe or, as actually happened, became a spastic quadriplegic. But I fail to see what it is that reformers are supposedly misrepresenting. A burglar fell through a skylight, and sued the owner of the skylight for his injuries. Bodine sued for $8 million (in 1984 dollars, about $16 million today) and settled for the nuisance sum of $260,000 plus $1200/month for life, about the equivalent of a million dollars in conservatively-estimated 2006 present value.

Personally--and this is a pretty popular opinion--I think this is insane. Also, I don't care for the counter-argument, though I'm glad someone actually gave a real one opponents of castle use.

Those are all really interesting scenarios and it would be very unfortunate if anything bad happened to those people. That said, the alternative list to punishing a homeowner for protecting his family is far longer and much more probable.

Since trespassing cannot be eliminated, the law must take a stance one way or the other on this issue. If you are making 'what if' arguments here, you will quickly see that there is much more in favor of unlimited immunity for the homeowner in these cases.

The counterarguement is the like force arguement commonly applied to things like bar fights. You come at me with a fist, I come at you with a fist. Where castle law is more like you come at me uninvited, you better damn will kill me cause I can come at you with anything. In other ways you should not escilate the violence.

As a Canadian who does not own a gun, I'm pro-control. I think people should be allowed to own firearms for the purpose of recreation (hunting, sport shooting) and for defense of your home. I understand that criminals tend to circumvent systems put in place by the government, but I would like to see what impacts mental health examinations being a mandatory part of becoming a gun owner would have on gun crime statistics.

I think the reason some people try to steal from the elderly is due to the fact that they think they are weak and fragile. Its like taking candy from a baby, but that baby is an old man or woman. I really hope this guy doesn't go to jail for defending himself.

have you ever tried taking candy from a baby? A baby holds onto candy like it's the most important thing in its life, and screams louder and more heartbroken than anything you have ever heard if you do get the candy. then every adult in the area kicks your ass.

I completely agree. I'd like to add that feeling your life is in danger is a subjective standard. Meaning that if a reasonable person in the shoes of the 92 year old would feel that he was in danger, he can use lethal force to protect himself. You cannot argue that that is not the case here.

Edit: You CAN argue it, but the judge and jury will find no merit to this argument.

In all honesty I don't think anyone would press charges in this kind of situation, it's pretty obvious that if he hadn't been prepared he would probably be dead now. He had the right to defend himself in his own home and no one should persecute him for what he did.

in america, we have a constitutional amendment to protect the right to own weapons and organize a state/local militia separate from the federal army. having just fought a war to overthrow the british, they were afraid the new government they created might become a new tyrant which would eventually need to be overthrown.

as for the right to defend yourself with lethal force, in this country every state has its own laws. some states are duty to retreat states where if you can, you must leave your own house and wait for the cops. you can only shoot intruders if they are armed and you can't escape. on the other extreme are states like Texas where you can shoot a man to protect anything that's yours. your family, your home, your car, your job.

ah, okay, I didn't know that - as an European, all we learn in school is that reason number one to bear arms is to do as the old man did - to defend yourself or, if so, your family in case someone endangers your/their well-being/s.

You learn that this is the way in Europe or in the US? The actual reason why the founders believed that owning guns was a right was to prevent the government from becoming tyrannical.

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." -- George Washington

"What country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." -- Thomas Jefferson

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government." --Thomas Jefferson, Draft Virginia Constitution (1776)

Maybe in one or two states. In almost every other state there is no duty to retreat, especially in your own home. Heck, even in California where we have the most restrictive firearms and self defense laws in the country, there has never been a duty to retreat law.

Not familiar with Kentucky, but my understanding is that Castle doctrine generally protects you in cases like this - you don't have to try really hard to prove you felt endangered - people entering your home uninvited for an obvious crime can be considered a threat to your life, period.

This is how it should be. Everywhere. I don't understand the argument to impose duties on a resident who is subjected to someone elses bad choice imposing upon their life.
Why would you ever demand that their should be a reasonable expectation of safety for someone invading and stealing from a private residence that they have no connection to.

Why should there ever be a reasonable level of safety for a criminal knowingly committing an unreasonable act.

I think the whole "stealing shouldn't cost you your life" thing is ridiculous. Hedonistic calculous shouldn't be applied to society and especially not to criminal acts. When you decide to throw the rules out the window and commit a crime (especially in a private space with a private owner present) you've signed yourself up for anything and should expect as much.
It doesn't take a genius to perform hedonistic calculous and as soon as you create laws protecting the rights of those committing criminal acts they increase. When you make a choice to violate the rights of others you consent that rights in themselves are illegitimate and you have zero grounds to expect any rights from others.

Is it so certain he would be dead? I would think most petty criminals like burglars would avoid confrontation. When I was burgaled, I didn't even realise anyone was in the house. Maybe it is different in the US?

I'm not saying the guy should face any charges. He did what he thought was best in that split second decision, but I just don't get why a man that came to steal some shit, would stare down the barrel of a gun from the doorway and do anything other than NOPE the fuck out of there.

A .22 bullet can deal a good bit more damage than most people realize. It's small enough that it can enter an artery or vein and travel to the heart which I've heard causes a heart attack or it could plug up blood flow to the brain causing a stroke. Either way, .22 can be very lethal. I've also been told that if someone were to be shot in the head, the bullet could potentially enter the skull and bounce around a couple times, stirring things up really well.

Edit: Added the word "vein" because people seemed to have a aneurysm without it there.

None of what you said makes any fucking sense. Arteries travel away from the heart, veins go towards the heart. The rest is just not even worth correcting.

Edit: downvotes? Do i really have to give an anatomy lesson? The idea that a bullet could enter an artery and ride the artery towards the heart is like saying im going to turn a hose on full blast, shoot the hose, and then the bullet is going to travel all the way up to the spicket. It doesnt make any fucking sense.

A bullet wouldnt simply enter into an artery and just sit there clogging things up. It would tear the artery to fucking shreds if it did manage to hit it.

and hell, the only artery remotely as big as a hose is your aorta, and if a bullet hit that, you'd be dead before you hit the ground.

I don't know where you got your artery-traveling bullet info, but that sounds absolutely ridiculous for a few reasons. Seems like one of those things that is possible under perfect circumstances (having an non-deformed bullet surgically inserted into a large enough artery) but would never happen.

The thing that really makes a .22 a good home-defense caliber, especially for older/weaker people is the fact that it has practically no recoil.

At the shooting range, i was able to put 15 .22 rounds in the head of a silhouette in 5 seconds with no misses at 30 feet.

With a .45, i managed to put 2 rounds into the head and had 1 miss in the same 5 second timespan.

With a larger caliber, it takes a moment to reacquire your target after every shot, while a .22 basically gives a very accurate string of lead.

“I was hoping another one would come up – I aimed right for his heart,”

In the full interview with this man, he explained how “These people aren’t worth any more to me than a groundhog,” and that he had "the best sleep he's had in a long time" after he shot the guy. Alpha 92 year-old man.

Sure, let me ask this violent criminal who just kicked down my door to have a seat and a spot of tea while I call the police to cruise over at their leisure, he totally won't mind. Props to the old man for doing the right thing and standing his ground. I would have shot the dumb motherfucker too.

(1) The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary to prevent:

(a) The commission of criminal trespass, robbery, burglary, or other felony involving the use of force, ...

(2) The use of deadly physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable under subsection (1) only when the defendant believes that the person against whom such force is used is:

(b) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary, robbery, or other felony involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to KRS 503.055, of such dwelling; or

(c) Committing or attempting to commit arson of a dwelling or other building in his possession.

(3) A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

Under Kentucky Castle Doctrine (above) this man did nothing wrong. He had reason to believe the intruder was there to rob him (as he says had happened 5-6 times before). Even if the guy was just breaking into his home to bring tea and cookies, that's still Criminal Trespassing.

I was actually just having this conversation with my roommate. We were on the topic of burglary for some reason:

Me: My dad told me never point your gun at someone unless you intend to shoot them and never shoot them unless you intend to kill them.

Roommate: What are you talking about? Just shoot him in the leg!

Me: Then he's still alive and can go for his gun and maybe shoot you! Or he might try to sue you or something. (I realize he wouldn't win, but that necessarily wouldn't keep him from trying.)

Roommate: That's ridiculous; if he goes for something, then shoot him again.

Me: You really think you're going to notice everything in the heat of the moment with adrenaline running? It's just cleaner, two in the chest and you're done. The scum is gone, no taxes spent on him in jail, and less of a headache for you afterwards. And since I only have a shotgun, two in the chest won't leave much of him.

This is exactly right, if force is needed, you use it. Same goes for any type of self defense. If you get in a fist fight you don't stop until the fight is broken up or the person is unconscious you don't know if said person could pull a knife or pick up a brick and bash your head in.

I'm not trying to sound like a hard ass or anything and conflicts should always be avoided but if someone is trying to harm you or take your life you don't half ass it. It really irks me when people, who have obviously never seen or been in these situations talk about "reasonable force" as if the situation was a reasonable situation to begin with. A good piece of advice I heard awhile ago was "it's better to be judged by twelve than carried by six"

PS: Before people starting posing all sorts of scenarios I am obviously talking about serious assault situations, not two drunk/stupid kids getting in a scuffle.

My grandparents are now in their late 80s. My parents live with them and my mother is a nurse who provides their care (they pleaded not to be placed in a home). We have to watch them very closely in order to protect them from people regularly try to scam them because they've become senile. Before my parents moved in their house was repeatedly broken into and robbed. My grandfather is a veteran of WWII, Korea, and Vietnam and fifteen years ago would have rendered someone unconscious but is now obviously unable to defend himself. The point here is: While I am clearly biased by my familial relations to people in similar situations I have recently become aware of the alarming number of people willing to exploit the elderly to make a dishonest buck, and I just can't find it in my heart to feel sorry for the guy who gets shot while trying to take advantage of someone he perceived to be weak.

TL;DR; I don't care what happens to a guy who is robbing old people. Good for you old man.

Seeing stories like this make me proud and happy to have moved to the US.
I'm from France, and we had a similar story that happened maybe last year or two years ago.
Some burglars broke into a house, the guy inside was pissed (obviously..), so they stabbed him with a screw driver. The man whose house it is, then proceeded to grab a rifle, and shoot the two burglars.
He is now in jail, because he killed two people.
In France you get in jail because you kill two people who rob and stab you. Great justice that we have. Fuck France. Everyone should be able to defend themselves.

Edit: Can't find that article, but here are two other. Google will do a great job at translating it for you.

I grew up in Missouri. The sheriff's department (police for parts of the county that aren't considered part of a city) is pretty large due to meth. The sheriff came and sat on my front porch with my father and I as we watched his deputies raid my neighbors house (they were cooking meth in city limits. Flash bangs, m16s, k-9 units, whole 9 yards).

Dad asked him about castle law and the sheriff said if they're inside without your permission you can use deadly force. My dad asked what to do if someone was trying to beat the door in, possibly armed. The sheriff said, "Shoot the bastard and drag him inside."

On the first article, the Google translation was extremely bad, but if I understand it correctly, the guy shot at the burglars after they had fled the scene, and were outside. America is no different in most places: this will get you sent to prison here too, and for good reason. If the attackers are fleeing, then you are not in danger any more, and have no cause to use lethal force (i.e., shooting them in the back). Heck, even back in our "Old West" days, shooting a man in the back was a hanging offense, and was considered cowardly. Worse, if they're outside your dwelling, you're basically shooting into a public area, at night, and that puts bystanders in danger if you miss your target.

If I misunderstood the article, I'm sorry.

With the second article, it's not quite so bad, the burglar was in the guy's house, however it sounds like the burglar had his hands full of some loot, so he wasn't much of a threat either. In the Castle Law states, the shooter would be safe, but in other states, probably not. In many places, you still have a duty to retreat if possible, not just walk up to some guy who has his hands full with a big-screen TV, or in this case a box of champagne, and shoot him. Finally, even here in Arizona, one of the most shooter-friendly states in the country (but not as much as Texas), there's significant costs to shooting someone in your house. You can expect to pay thousands of dollars for the "privilege" of dispatching an intruder. Why? Well, who do you think is going to clean up the mess? The coroner will take away the body, but all the blood and brains and stuff is your responsibility. So unless you really want to do that yourself, you have to hire a crime scene cleaning service to clean it up for you. These companies are specially trained and licensed for this work, and their services are NOT cheap. Shooting some guy over a $100 case of champagne or whatever isn't worth it when it'll cost at least $1-2k to clean up the mess without possibly getting a disease.

My advice? If your house is invaded, go to your bedroom with your gun and your cellphone. If there's more than one of you, have one call 911, while the other covers the door. As soon as someone enters the bedroom, shoot them dead (aiming for center-of-mass, which is the chest). If they come in your bedroom, they're there to hurt you. If they honestly got the wrong house, or just want your TV, or didn't realize someone was home, they won't come to your bedroom. And you can't retreat from a bedroom, so any jury will agree that you had to make your last stand there, and that your shooting was fully justified. And finally, you have a giant tactical advantage being holed in the bedroom like that, as there's usually only one entrance/exit, and you can usually hide behind the bed and use it as a shield. You don't get that kind of tactical advantage in your living room usually. Of course, there's always extenuating circumstances, like if you're 92 years old and can't exactly jump and run into the bedroom quickly.

Amazing story, wish this would happen even more often than it already does... instead of 3 20-something guys murdering a 90yr old couple... the 92yr old man shoots the guy in the chest... one bad guy off the street... justice served.

Yeah, and we had a jackass radio host that kept fucking pestering him with 'So, dont you feel any remorse over taking this poor mans life', even going so far as to falsely quote another host just to call the old man 'a cold-hearted bastard'

I can't believe there was even a debate! There is absolutely no reason this man shouldn't have shot! Had he not, so very easily we could have been talking about the 92 year old man who was killed by burglars.

Not sure why you got downvoted for asking a question. The bullet diameters are close but the cartrage is larger and the bullet is heavier in the .223 (5.56 really). Also the .22 round is rimfire and the .223 is centerfire.

I upvoted you because I don't believe that your ignorance deserves to be downvoted. While a .22 is "a rifle round", it's a very small round. An M16 uses the NATO standard 5.56x45mm round, while the .22 in question is much smaller as you can see: #1 is .22LR, while #16 is 5.56x45.

A .22LR is somewhat equatable to a high powered BB gun usually used to hunt squirrel or small varmint. Here is a side by side comparison. Note that the size difference comes from the large amount of propellant which results in magnitudes greater force and velocity.

I can't tell you how much I love, LOVE hearing stories like this. I have a sign on my back door that says, "There is nothing in this house worth dying for" (a bit OTT, I know, but it's got a funny picture of a shotgun wielding granny on it), and I sleep with a loaded .38 next to my bed.

good for this guy. he did what he should have done. burglars are low life forms and they know the dangers of the work they do. if they didn't want to be shot and killed they should steal from people. he deserved what he got, and that 92 year old is a hero for teaching that scum a lesson.

That's the deterrent theory behind less gun control and I completely agree with it. Also, stricter gun control laws do little from preventing criminals from owning guns. They do, however, take more guns away from law abiding citizens wishing to merely defend their home and themselves.

I never understood breaking into houses, it's extremely dangerous and the crime carries a harsher sentence. I see people that just leave stuff laying about all over the place, outside. Why not just steal that shit?

I, for one, am against elderly veterans being able to protect their lives and property from burglars. Burglars should have the right not to be shot while doing their work. If a few old people have to be brutalized or die, so be it. It's just not fair if law-abiding homeowners have guns too. Let's make guns illegal.

unknown if the intruder was armed or not. safest bet not to ask politely, fire center mass until the threat is eliminated. Center mass from 15 feet away. hard to miss. especially at the top of a concrete stair case. probably broke his neck on the way down if the bullet didn't kill him.

I one day hope to live in a world, where criminals are afraid to burglarize other peoples homes, for fear of getting shot in the face by the property owner. This man did the right thing, and I hope this serves as an inspiration to other citizens in his neighborhood, and a warning to would be potential burglars.